60frames found this footage of a young Hillary Rodham Clinton in her early school years.
Heather MacDonald in the Wall Street Journal:
Some in Mr. Wright’s crew of charlatans have already had their moments in the spotlight; others are less well known. They form part of the tragic academic project of justifying self-defeating underclass behavior as “authentically black.”
Obama is coming out hard against the man he previously dismissed with “Oh, him? He’s just crazy sometimes. But he doesn’t mean any harm…”
The wise saying that one’s walk talks louder than their talk talks is bringing all Obama’s chickens home to roost.
He spent 20 years listening to this vitriol and hatred spewing against the very nation which has blessed him, his ungrateful and narcissistic wife, and his children. He chose to allow this man to be a confidant and counselor. He exposed his children to a hate-monger.
And we trust him to make good and sound judgments for our entire nation?
Moving on to other news:
I’ve never much cared for Newt since his affair. A man who cannot love his wife is a man I cannot trust.
But this is against his philosophy and all the good things he has stood for:
This is mostly right:
“If enough of us demand action from our leaders…”
After all, it is our leaders who have not allowed us to harness the natural resources so plentiful in our land.
This is all wrong:
“…we can spark the innovation we need.”
Thomas Edison did not ask government to invent a light bulb. He did it himself.
Many liberals are claiming now that the “deregulated” energy companies need government oversight to ensure they are innovating enough and not gouging their customers.
If they were indeed deregulated there would not be an issue. It is the fact that the energy industry has to ask permission of the government before their allowed to breathe, let alone innovate. A deregulated energy industry would be drilling in ANWR right now, without harming animal populations (because who wants the backlash from that). We would have been building Nuclear power plants by the dozens and they’d be efficient and reliable and safe, the way they have been.
Instead we’re stuck with too little growth and subsequently higher and higher costs for energy.
Scoop your brains back into your skull Newt. Government is never the answer.
What Washington fails to understand is that freedom is not the problem: it is the solution. ~Congresswoman Michele Bachman (R) Minnesota
Michele is waging war against the law making standard incandescent light bulbs illegal in the US in favor of the compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) which, while using less energy to burn, cost more, contain trace amounts of mercury, and take more energy to fabricate.
Talent, not affirmative action, will save CBS News. ~Andrea Peyser, New York Post
Katie Couric was hired for politics, not talent. Don’t count on CBS changing it’s tune though: to liberals, it’s the thought that counts.
It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. ~Senator Barak Hussein Obama(D) Illinois, Presidential Candidate
It’s hard to hide who you are, Barak. Stop trying.
With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.
McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)
McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.
It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.
Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?
Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.
Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:
Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.
Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…
I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.
…and endorses Romney.
Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.
And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:
After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.
I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.
I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.
And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.
I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.
Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.
Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain – an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?
We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:
“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”
My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.
This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.
Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:
- He can win
- He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
- He believes America’s best days are ahead of it
And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?
So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.
In the race for the Republican nomination, there’s something for everyone.
There’s a liberal who’s principled and experienced but still liberal.
There’s a populist who tickles ears and yet is Christian, courageous, and popular.
There’s a fiscal conservative with serious experience and a very public track-record who wore a dress (once, on camera), supports homosexual marriage, and is not in favor of criminalizing mothers who have abortions (a slight but significant difference from actually being pro-choice).
There’s some dude with two first names and some good ideas, but with serious inconsistency, and serious stupidity concerning international affairs and national security harking back to pre-WWII Republican isolationism.
There’s a conservative business leader and governor with a funny first name and movie-star looks who’s been consistent, if not amazing.
And there’s a movie star without the looks who’s been amazing, if not consistent. If only he acted like he wanted to win.
There are others, but they are also-ran’s or sometimer’s and not worth consideration at this stage in the game.
I don’t much care for the liberal, the populist, the fiscal, or Mr. Two Names. Though I could stomach the fiscal, were he to, by some stretch of imagination, win the nomination. The others I abhor for various reasons.
The liberal is neither a man of honor nor a man of principle. He has convenient and far-sighted-sounding reasons for his liberal attachments and accomplishments, but his willingness to sell the farm, ideologically speaking, is not the measure of a man. Personally, I admire and honor his courage in his past. But I fear to many years within the beltway, and those who have spent those years with him not recommending him in the droves we’d expect, are very indicative of a lack of character and ability.
The populist is just that. He uses his sincere (and I do not doubt, genuine) Christianity to excuse and/or support and champion decidedly non-Christian policies. God did not institute a welfare state (for individuals or corporations) in Theocratic Israel. Instead He instituted laws and policies which protected individuals from each other’s harm and sin. Claiming that “green” science is correct in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary does not lead me to believe he is either “wise as a serpent” or “harmless as a dove”. In fact, I would submit the populist is the inverse: He is wise as a dove and harmless as a serpent (taken ironically, of course).
Mr. Two Name needs no rebuttal as he is his own best revealing mirror. Dismissed out of hand is the best response to the majority of his supporters.
I’d like the movie star to catch a fire, but his lack of consistency heretofore is troubling, and I believe, more accurately indicative of who he’d be in office that what he’d be if he did catch a fire.
The man I voted for in my last election (for some time at least) in California is the leader. A realization I came to after considering what he does when there’s not supposed to be a camera around.
Here are a few articles from across the web which seem to me to be particularly salient and and appropriate to the candidates in this race.
- The Trouble With McCain
Jay Cost, Wall Street Journal
Thirty-four Republicans have endorsed Mr. Romney, while just 24 have endorsed Mr. McCain. Furthermore, Mr. Romney’s supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for Mr. McCain’s supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states. In light of Mr. McCain’s résumé, this is consequential. He should have locked up most members of the Republican caucus, but he has not.
- Hillary And MLK
John McWhorter, Wall Street Journal
…[T]here she was on “Meet the Press” Sunday, having to defend herself for simply saying that while King laid the groundwork (which she acknowledged), another part of the civil rights revolution was Lyndon B. Johnson’s masterful stewardship of the relevant legislation through Congress. She was arguing that she is more experienced in getting laws passed in Washington than is Barack Obama — which is true.
- Barak Obama And Israel
Ed Lasky, American Thinker
One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama’s career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism.
- Where They Stand
Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal
…[T]he political ups and downs of the candidates and the electricity of the campaign–”I am promising change!”–matter much less than the substantive policies the next president would implement regarding the five most important challenges facing our country.
Two stories about numbers that aren’t lying. Unfortunately, numbers often don’t have voices capable of counteracting lies made by their misuse.
Beginning with with the classic assumption that everybody worthwhile agrees with him, the author, Stephen Crockett, claims that:
It is obvious that none of the major Presidential candidates of either the Democratic or Republican Parties are supporting the right approach to providing universal healthcare. Frankly, all the Republican candidates are going to be major obstacles to achieving this national goal. While the top Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) do support the concept, they are all offering Band-Aid approaches for a life-threatening economic and health crisis in America.
I’m not sure, Mr. Crockett, but I don’t find it obvious. While I agree that there are several challengers on each side whose policy proposals are so bloated and impossible as to be laughable, the fact that you apparently don’t think they go far enough is proof positive that it is not obvious.
Just a warning: it goes downhill from there.
From Thinking Out Loud: Visions of Universal Healthcare Dance In Their Heads.
Second, in what is becoming an unpleasant task considering the number of good friends who support this guy because he is a Christian while ignoring the obviously un-christian nature of his policies, Mike Huckabee is listed as one of the top ten “most wanted”corrupt politicians of 2007.
Judicial Watch placed Mike as number 6, surrounded by such other luminous paragons of anti-virtue and un-justice as Hillary Clinton (#1), Rudy Guiliani (#5), and Barak Obama (#8):
Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.
Aforementioned Congressman John Conyers is#2 on the list. And California’s Senator Feinstein and Representative Pelosi are numbers 4 and 9, respectively.
Presidential candidate Barak Obama startled some and confirmed the hopes and dreams of others when he claimed recently to be the lesser known fourth member of the Triune God-head.
In a statement commemorating the second anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina, Barak claimed what could only be God-like powers in his bold words “Never again.”
It is unclear whether he meant that never again would a Hurricane strike New Orleans or that never again would the Federal Government be so laxidaisical in its sending of enormous amounts of money wherever someone experienced the slightest difficulty. Either task is more than the average sub-deity-level human or any number of the same.
Government does not know efficiency. I’m sure Mr. Obama would create a whole new bureaucracy dedicated just to sending money to New Orleans, that would fix the problem.
My one question for
god Barak is: what about Biloxi, MS?